Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Hugh Pickens writes "Brian Fung writes in the Atlantic that one of Romney's electoral problems is that he occupies a kind of uncanny valley for politicians, inexplicably turning voters off despite looking like the textbook image of an American president. Just as people who interact with lifelike robots often develop a strange feeling due to something they can't quite name, something about Romney leaves voters unsettled. As with the robotic version of the uncanny valley, the closer Romney gets to becoming real to a voter, the more his likeability declines. 'The effect is almost involuntary, considering the substantial advantages Romney enjoys from appearance alone,' writes Fung. 'But in person, his polished persona gives way to what appears a surprisingly forced and inauthentic character.' Political commentator Dana Milbanks adds that although Romney is confident and competent, in casual moments his weirdness comes through — equal parts 'Leave It to Beaver' corniness and social awkwardness. 'Romney's task now is to work his way out of the uncanny valley toward a more compelling style of humanity,' concludes Fung. 'But every day he lingers in it, the hill grows steeper.'"

Geez, one of the worst of the Washington Post shill-meisters. And it is Milbank, not Milbanks who has said "that the whole campaign-trail reporting gig is a complete waste of time and borderline fraudulent". How is this/. material?

IMO every one of the Republican nominees are pretty damned creepy, especially Gingrinch (apologies to Tom Tomorrow).

I think the "uncanny valley" characteristic here is pretty damned far fetched. If Romney looks creepy, what makes Obama look any less creepy? Or any holywood movie star, for that matter?

I just saw today that Romney's superpac is mostly made up of Wall Street investors. Maybe someone should Occupy him?

At any rate, we have no good choices. I'll probably vote Green or Libbie anyway, just because I find it incredibly stupid to vote for anyone who wants to put you, some of your friends, or members of your family in prison. You may not smoke pot, but someone you love does. And we're spending billions we can't afford arresting, trying, and imprisoning THOSE YOU LOVE. How rational is that?

Someone was outside my office yesterday making the same gripe about pot laws, so for even more fun I drew another line for him supporting his argument.

Have you ever considered the link between our pot laws and illegal immigration?

Our drug policy is based on interdiction - stopping the supply. Drugs also follow the law of supply and demand. If we reduce the supply and the demand stays constant, the price rises. This has been happening. The net is that drug lords in Mexico and South America are very well funded. In Mexico in particular, the drug lords seem to be better funded than the authorities, so much so that large parts of the country are essentially lawless.

This makes for a bad business climate. No business, no jobs. No jobs, go somewhere else to find them - like the US.

Oh yeah, there's another line to be drawn between our agriculture and energy policies and the same illegal immigration. Think corn.

Never ascribe to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

Except that in this case, there seems to be plenty of historical evidence for a specific "conspiracy" that resulted in hemp/marijuana being included in the US's new drug laws in the 1920s. The conspiracy was driven by William Randolph Hearst, who wanted to block development of a new paper-making process that could turn hemp into very cheap paper. This would have destroyed much of the value of his extensive forestry holdings that produced pulpwood. There was already the usual objection to marijuana from

Consequences can only be "unintended" for so long. We've known for decades, arguably centuries, that creating a large/popular black market will divert economic strength away from the general populace toward criminals. When you see it as it's happening, and maintain (rather than repeal) the laws that make that market remain black, it's no longer an unintended consequence. At the very best, it's a regretfully accepted/planned consequence.

You can't say "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet" and then call the breaking of eggs unintended. Oh you intended it, you just weren't completely happy about it.

Similarly, we shouldn't allow politicians a free pass on the known and anticipated consequences of the drug war. They can still support the drug war with honor, but only if they own those consequences. The authoritarian parties need to come out and say

We know better than doctors and your local governments, believe there is a limit to the dignity humans should be allowed to have, and also we believe that it is better that Americans send their drug money to Mexico than spend it on domestic farms. Drug production is that unwanted in our country that we're willing to make these sacrifices, and here is why...

and then finish that sentence with whatever amazing fact or political theory it is, that has been so preciously held from the public for so long. But don't fucking say, "We didn't intend to usurp your local government, overrule your doctor, disrepect people, and send money to Mexico.. we had no idea prohibition would necesitate all that," because that is just insultingly unbelievable.

Mod this up. Too many people apply Hanlon's Razor by giving far too much leeway to "adequate stupidity". When you see any large institutional system that seems incredibly stupid, look behind the curtain because it just may be incredibly smart for someone else's benefit.

Sorry, but that's ignorant. If Ron Paul becomes president, he won't make pot legal, he won't put the country on the gold standard, and I'm not even sure if he will end the U.S. occupation of other countries. Why? Because just like Obama his hands will tied by the political reality that those options are not popular. He might try to do them, but he'd end up crucified and his legacy would as the most ineffectual president in U.S. history.

If you want those things come to pass, you have to do more than vote for a name. You need to convince a lot of other Americans that they're good ideas. It takes a lot more than a leader to have a revolution.

Because Mitt Romney is the most advanced humanoid robot we have yet designed. The fact that it has made it this far in politics is absolutely stunning, even if it fails the Turing test every once in a while.

Perry was a rebranding of the Bush 3.0 robot, but the code rewrite for Bush 2.0 introduced several bugs in the language synthesizer module that still weren't fixed in the Bush 3.0 version.

As the Bush 2.0 model once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

I did find the article interesting when it appeared in The Atlantic, but after some thoughtfulness I realize it's very unfair to argue that a human being falls into the Uncanny Valley, and that this article is really just a stretch to find some shred of fresh insight in a Presidential Primary that has dragged on forever through too many debates with a mainstream media that can't look away while viewers are completely over it (sorry for the run-on sentence). Things that fall into the UV are supposed to be "creepy," and Romney isn't creepy, he's just out of touch and it's fair to compare him to the Al Gore of the 2000 election in that respect.

That being said, Republicans seem to be split into the "angry" and "policy" factions. Newt Gingrich is in many ways more liberal than Romney, but Red-Meat-Limbaugh-Coulter conservatives love him because of his in-your-face debate style. He appeals to that anger Fox News and 24-hour conservative AM radio has firmly rooted in so many Americans. That's why I find it hilarious that Limbaugh and Coulter are arguing against him, as it was their rhetorical style that has made his candidacy possible.

I hope Romney wins this so America can have a constructive debate over economic equality. He'll bring attention to the fact that capital gains are only taxed at 15% compared to labor-income being taxed at 30%, and that the reason it's so low is because he personally lobbied against making it more equitable in the 1980s. Evangelical Christians will have to rethink their tax-deductible church donations in the context of Romney's $3 million yearly donations to the Mormon Church. He'll bring attention to the fact that companies like his keep their money in tax shelters overseas and that his consulting firm bankrupted many of the companies they claim to have saved when they had to pay the consulting feeds. He's not creepy, but he is out of touch with what life is like for 99% of voters ("I'll bet you $10,000."), and he'll put a face on the faceless economic issues we need to address in these United States.

I suppose the arguement could be made that it's double dipping if the moneys you are paying capital gains taxes on were already subjected to corprate income taxes. But that could only really apply to things like dividends that are shares of corporate profit.

But most capital gains taxed income is likely from sales of stock and such. The price for a stock is not directly tied to the real world value of a corporations assets. In fact the stock is often more than 20 times the value of the company. So the justif

Eh, most Christians will try to claim their "weirder", but only because they completely ignore their own weirdness. You don't really have a strong leg to stand on to make fun of people who wear "magic underwear" when you ritually eat crackers that you pretend are the flesh of your 2000 years dead savior.

Except South Park does a good job in this respect. For people who have first hand knowledge of the sickness of fundamentalist christian religious cults, it is therapeutic to have them maligned and exposed for the weirdness they exhibit.

Only Catholic and Orthodox Christians (and according to polls, only half of the Catholics) believe that the host (think about what that word means) becomes Jesus. The Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants and every other variety of Christian reject that particular teaching. They believe it's only a symbolic presence, so they what they consider the the most outrageous of orthodox teachings as well.

I was "raised Catholic" (scary quotes because it didn't prevent me from becoming an atheist) and I was never told, by family nor priests, that "the host becomes Jesus". It's always been a symbol. Then again, I went to churches in relatively progressive, working class areas.

Yes, it is. And it's not really Christianity. I'll save the details, but mainstream Protestant and Catholic denominations do not recognize LDS as "Christian". It is heavily based on the same teachings, but there are some core foundational differences. To those who think Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, Muslims et al. are all worshipping pretend fantastical delusions, the differences don't really matter, but they are there.

Mormons have "be wholesome" as a very strong teaching of what it takes to b

Being a "vulture capitalist" who makes millions of dollars by ruining the lives of others, destroying viable companies as part of a firm whose mantra was "strip and sell", is not wholesome.Dodging taxes and exploiting loopholes is not wholesome.Supporting a party with racism as a key platform plank is not wholesome.Supporting a party that wants to go to war with the world and waste lives is not wholesome.

Whether you are pro-choice or not, the LDS Church is not pro-choice, and yet Romney was pro-choice as governor, vehemently so. So that would not make him a "wholesome Mormon modeling good Mormon behavior."

The problem with Romney is he's not wholesome at all. He's a stellar example of what's wrong with the Republican Party today - an amoral, evil asshole who's wearing a Fred Rogers suit.

Putting quotes around stuff doesn't make it true.The companies that Romney was said to "strip and sell" were companies that were on the verge of collapse. So they buy the companies, make them profitable and then sell them. A big reason why a lot of companies get in the verge of collapse status is because they got too ambitious in their growth, or have reached their peak and they kept trying to grow, while other forces are making such companies business model not as successful. The current owners do not know what to do, or are afraid of making the tough decision to unfortunately lay off people in areas where growth isn't feasible. Also part of the process is to hire people in the right areas. Then when they get the company back on their feet they will sell it. That is their job. If there weren't companies doing this a lot more companies will just close down and all the employees will loose their job.

Dodging taxes and exploiting loopholes... He is not dodging taxes or exploiting anything, his primary source of income has a 15% limit on it. The tax form with the paper will have that number and if you had most of your money coming from you will probably be paying similar tax rates. Blame the Tax law for this not the man.

Racism as a key platform? The republican party is not racists however they are #1 with racists (to paraphrase The Simpsons). The Republicans are not racist as part of their platform. However their goal of smaller government does clash with with equal rights groups who feels that government needs to be more involved.

During the republican primaries I am not hearing much War Hawking going on. They do want to keep the military of the US strong.

Romney was a Governor of Massachusetts a strong pro-life stance would get him nowhere, besides the Abortion issues is political smoke anyways...

You have a problem with facts, you want to vilify the republicans you are just as bad as the republicans are to the democrats. You come up with lies and you back them up with more lies from other sources so your lies seem like the truth.

That doesn't sound like a good business model. That it buy low and sell at a loss... Those are for cases that they couldn't turn around.

You are unfamiliar with the corporate raider model of business?Step 1: Buy original company, generally in a hostile takeover (e.g. "leveraged buyout.").Step 2: Sell off company assets and transfer all monies to "parent company" (corporate raider), leaving nothing but debt in original company.Step 3: Leave remaining debt in original company, spin it back off into "independent" status, and let the debt be taken care of by bankruptcy court.

It's abuse of bankruptcy proceedings, really. And Romney made his millions off of this type of scam.

As for the rest, you're just a fucking idiot. I encourage you to take a latino friend to a Tea Party rally to see firsthand the things those racist fucking retards do and say to him. I've seen it firsthand myself, it was the final straw that made me say to hell with the so called "conservative" movement.

Never trust ANYONE who wears a suit and tie. Especially if the guy in the suit claims to be a Christian; the tie is Satan's leash, the symbol of wealth and power, the symbol of greed, the symbol of everything Jesus was against. If your preacher wears a tie, you're in the wrong church (unless you worship money, in which case you're fine).

Of course, many Catholics claim that Protestants are "not really Christianity", either (and vice-versa).

I will say one thing about Mormons... of all the people I've met of different religions, Mormons were by far the nicest and most genuine people. They actually try and live the tenants of their religion. I'm an atheist, but if I had to pick a religion to follow because I wanted the culture, I'd pick being a Mormon. I hate alcohol anyway.:)

They're not perfect of course (their support of California's Prop 8 is particularly troubling), but overall having Romney be a Mormon is a positive in my book, compared to, say, Santorum who is a full-blown religious wack job.

Yeah, but we're a rather cynical nation and have trouble believing anyone actually is that nice and genuine. It creeps us out. When someone is nice to me, they're usually looking to either sell me something or screw me over. Did you see how Romney did better in Florida when he started being a dick to Gingritch? That's familiar territory for us. That's our comfort zone. If Romney can manage to be a huge asshole for the next 46 states, he should have no problem taking the nomination.

Americans are a rather strange bunch. Probably akin to quantum physics, whoever says they truly understand them is (probably) lying.
Whenever I think I get the drift, they'll do something so whacky that it leaves me baffled.

How do you think the concept of Separation of Church and State would fare under President Romney?

Far better than under a 'mainstream' Christian. Who understands better about religious persecution than Mormons? The last thing they'll do is legislate so that one religion is able to dominate more than others, because that dominant religion won't be theirs.

How about your rights to be left alone even after death?

You know what? I'm dead. If it makes my family happy to baptize me in whatever they want so that

I think mormonism is actually worse. While it's tough to compare different strands or craziness, mormonism isn't like scientology - brand new bullshit. It takes christinanity and adds even more nonsense to it. Recent nonsense, from the 1800s. So, interms of weirdness, I figure A+B has to be greater than A (for non-negative values of B, in case someone is thinking about being a jackass).

No, standard Christianity is every bit as weird as Mormonism. People have just grown up around it, so it gets a pass.

Which one is standard Christianity exactly?

The six Oriental Orthodox churches* have the best claim to being standard Christianity, in terms of not introducing new innovations not found in the early Christian church. The "ISO standard" of Christianity was formulated with the first three ecumenical councils in AD 325 (or 325 CE), 381, and 431. These three councils essentially define the universal core of Christianity. The Oriental Orthodox churches reject nearly all innovations since that time (including ones accepted by other Eastern Orthodox churches).

Theologically, Mormons are the Muslims of the West. They're like every other religion, except with a double-extra draught of crazy. But then they became this country club for rich extra-white people with secret stuff that outsiders must not know. They begrudgingly gave up their extra wives around 1900 and begrudgingly allowed black people to have souls more than half a century later. They have wonderful teeth and if you find a mormon girl who has strayed they will do very dirty stuff. This last bit I found out when I was a postdoc at land grant school out West. [note to wife in case she's reading this: this was more than a decade before we met]

Most of the above is gleaned from rumors and South Park (except the bit about the lapsed-LDS girl and dirty stuff) because I've only met like two Mormons in my life. I have so little in common with Mormons that I seem to have existed in a separate plane of reality from them. Perhaps I just avoid crazy people. Or maybe Mormons avoid crazy people. I was going to say that perhaps I avoid people who wear magic underwear, but I know that's not true, since I've still got a pair of drawers that I've had since college because I think they're lucky. So maybe Mormons are not that crazy.

I used to not care about Mitt Romney, until I heard a serious biographer of his say in an interview that Romney will occasionally cut up for his family or friends by doing a spot-on impersonation of Michael Jackson singing Billie Jean. Apparently Mitt knows all the lyrics and can do a great moon-walk. Does the One Glove thing. Ever since I heard that, I am scared to death of the man. Whenever I see him on TV I start to hyperventilate and have to run out of the room.

I used to not care about Mitt Romney, until I heard a serious biographer of his say in an interview that Romney will occasionally cut up for his family or friends by doing a spot-on impersonation of Michael Jackson singing Billie Jean. Apparently Mitt knows all the lyrics and can do a great moon-walk. Does the One Glove thing. Ever since I heard that, I am scared to death of the man. Whenever I see him on TV I start to hyperventilate and have to run out of the room.

Comedians are by and large the most honest group of people you can find. It's not funny if it's not true. Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Louis CK, Jon Stewart. These people speak more truths than any holy man.

Except that no, Mormonism is much like Scientology in that they keep a large laundry list of things "not to be discussed with outsiders."

This is the very thing that most layman do not understand about these cults. Cults by their very definition redefine commonplace words and euphemisms to mean something completely different within their group. Their very core is the act of hiding their true beliefs from outsiders. The upper-echelon of their leadership know that if their disposition was public they would have no hope of winning more converts. They require exemplary behavior of their flock, float an amazing story to rook you in, and after the

I've found with Mormons in general... their almost pathological inability to publicly treat people with disrespect, even when deserved.

Mitt does not have that problem. He is regularly disrespectful to his political foes. His son Matt doesn't have that problem, propagating lies like the "birther" myth, likely at the request of daddy big bucks.

No, I think Mormons are just as big of jerks as anyone else. The core of Mitt's weirdness is a combination of religious secrecy and political pandering. He is so worried about telling the person in front of him what it takes to get elected, while trying to maintain a distance between them that the end

Speaking of uncanny appearances, Endorse Liberty (a PAC that supports Ron Paul) put out some web ads featuring other politicians, including "Fake Mitt Romney". One of the first things he says is "I'm Fake Mitt Romney, which makes me a lot like the real Mitt Romney". You can see it here [youtube.com].

John Jackson:"It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."Jack Johnson:"Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."John Jackson:"I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."Jack Johnson:"And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."

No, because Republicans have sacrificed virtue for "electability" as have the Democrats. So rather than voting in the primary for people who really represent their beliefs, they vote for someone who is "electable" in the process getting someone who doesn't represent their beliefs at all.

I'm a registered Republican, and this year when they called for a donation I told them: "I will not be giving money to any party this year." That was the quickest I have ever gotten off the phone with them. I hope many others told them the same thing.

No. Every election cycle, I take a look at the candidates and think "Are these the best of the best? Can't we do better?" The answer to both is a big NO.

These guys are the survivors of a weird winnowing process. Egotistical enough to believe they should be president, connected enough to get support, organized enough to run, stubborn enough to stick with it, and with not too many skeletons in the closet. Can speak well and doesn't appear overtly crazy or hideously ugly.

A couple of those talents are useful as president, but there isn't a 1:1 correlation.

Makes you sort of wonder if the way candidates were chosen in a smoke filled back room wasn't an improvement. I almost wish we could elect a couple committees to go and recruit a presidential candidate each for the whole population to then vote on. Call them the hypothetical R and D committees.

There's also the first filter of wanting the position in the first place. Not just believing that they could do a good job, but wanting to be the one governing a country that is in many ways ungovernable. Power always has its attraction, but at the moment the US president seems to have only the purpose of taking the blame.

>> Just as people who interact with lifelike robots often develop a strange feeling due to something they can't quite name,..and it has nothing at all to do with the fact that anything he says is inherently untrustable, and that he is only self-serving like the worst used car salesman?

1. He lied under oath. We call that perjury and it's a felony.2. He lied under oath in a trial where he was having to account for unwanted sexual advances on a woman.3. As a matter of law, we try to make at least a half-assed attempt to protect women from aggressive, unwanted sexual advances.4. Felonies are actually named as a basis upon which a President can be impeached.

If he had just admitted the truth, there was nothing the system could have done to him because it was a civil trial and Presidents cannot be impeached for purely civil matters.

We don't call lying under oath "perjury." We call lying under oath about something material to the case at hand "perjury." Clinton did lie under oath in a deposition about Whitewater to questions that had not a damn thing to do with the case, therefore not perjury. If you go back and check, he was completely acquitted of that charge--even by several Republicans.

Also, even if he were eventually found guilty, felonies are not named as a basis upon which a President can be impeached. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is the basis. Clinton had an affair. Stop trying to conflate that with giving away our nuclear codes to China.

By the way, you might want to know that as a matter of law, we do not prosecute people because of consensual sex.

And by the way, he WAS impeached because of sex. You can try to dress it up any way you want, but that's it, period. They tried to get him on Whitewater, and they couldn't. He was completely acquitted of all of those charges, too. Maybe you don't remember so well what happened during those days, but I sure as hell do. The Republicans made some shit up and hauled him in to give a sworn deposition under oath about Whitewater. Once he got in the room, they started asking him all sorts of sordid, slimy questions that didn't have a damn thing to do with the case at hand. Everyone in that room--especially Bill Clinton--knew that the testimony would be leaked and that it had zero to do with any actual crime. It was character assassination, pure and simple. Hell, they knew they didn't have the votes to actually find him guilty, so the end goal wasn't really to remove him from office, either. The point was to get Ken Starr's report out to the public and put all of the salacious details on people's televisions; to distract the public from REAL issues.

Clinton was by far one of the best presidents we've ever had. Eight straight years of relative peace, no messy expensive international entanglements, budget surpluses, record low unemployment, booming economy with little inflation, etc. Had the Republicans not conducted their little smear campaign, there's no way come hell or high water Al Gore could lose in 2000, it would have been a Reaganesque landslide. They were desperate, and as a result, Clinton for a couple of years had a very hard time carrying out his duties as President. I kinda wish he had been able to focus on things like, I dunno, say, Osama bin Laden, instead of having to testify about where someone consented for him to put a cigar.

So stop being such a tool and persisting with this bogus "but he lied under oath, waaaah!" bullshit. He was impeached due to sex, and it was nothing but a Republican ploy to take the White House in 2000, end of story.

"The SAME people who thought Clinton was a great president decided he was no good anymore because he screwed an intern." What? No. The people who were after him were the REPUBLICANS, who never wanted him to be president.

"Barack Obama is a socialist. He's trying to overhaul this country along the lines of Europe." (pauses while boos fill the hall).

"That's right, my friends. Now, Europe is a nice place to visit - I spent about five years there in France during the Viet Nam War. Bonjour, tout le monde! Comment allez-vous aujourd'hui?" (pauses, but is met by silence)

"And Switzerland is a great place to park your money for tax purposes, but I've found we have a better tax shelter right here in the Cayman Islands!" (pauses again.. scattered nervous applause)

"Not that I ever had much money in those accounts, contrary to what the elite liberal press has suggested. Maybe $30 million or so at the peak. But I am not going to apologize for being a successful businessman, I've created a lot of jobs during my career. There's Everett " (points to the someone in the crowd) "Everett worked for the printer we used at Bain Capital for the private equity contracts." (sustained applause)

"I'm going to repeal Obamacare. I'm going to win the debates - when the President starts in with one of his outrageous Keystone Cops statements I'll turn to him and say, Ten Thousand Dollar bet, Barack?"

"And when November comes, we're going to put Obama's dog on the roof of the car " (cheering starts to build) ".. and we're going to take it for a spin on the highway for a few hours, and then we're going to close down the union plant that built the car!" (wild cheers and cries of "Mitt, Mitt")

The man's top ten donors are all Wall Street blue blood institutions, he's the inspiration for Obamacare and more. The more conservatives get to know him, the more they start to think it doesn't matter if Obama wins because Romney not only shares the same core issue positions, but has the executive experience to quite possibly be even more "effective" in the ways they want to prevent. This race has become a case of the Republican primary voters and RNC once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I

Here we go. The hard and heavy wheels of destruction are starting to turn. Inevitable I suppose.

IMO, Romney is, intellectually and experientially, the most qualified candidate for US president that we've seen in the last two centuries. I'm not sure what kind of president he'll end up being, but he is certainly qualified for the role and infinitely more qualified than the current US president.

FWIW, I had the opportunity to work in fairly close proximity to the man back in 1994. Back then I got the distinct impression that he was generally the smartest guy in the room. But what really stands out in my memory was a meeting where various topics of quantitative finance were discussed...in detail. He was very comfortable with partial differential equations.:-)

Are you serious or is this a subtle joke I am miss-understanding? Romney is intellectually and experientially the most qualified candidate for US president? Really? Really?

Romney is a corporate shill, who is willing to flip-flop on any issue as long as it gets him the nomination and presidency. He doesn't care about 99% of the people in this country, he only cares about keeping himself rich and empowered, and keeping those other rich people and especially corporations, rich and empowered.

If Romney is in the uncanny valley, let's eliminate the impossible and what's left must be the truth. He clearly is not a corpse, and let's face it, zombies are fictional, so he must have some sort of prosthesis. Not a prosthetic hand, but perhaps a prosthetic forehead.

Even before Iowa, people were claiming Romney was "electable". WTF? Why is a guy who couldn't beat a 100 year old loser in 2008 "electable"? More important, when has the "electable" candidate actually WON?? McCain was electable, and so was Bob Dole. On the other side, John Kerry was electable, and I'm pretty sure Hilary was more electable than an unknown 2 year Senator with a foriegn name.

Yep. I'm sorry but I'm not voting for Obama, Santorum, Gingrich and I'm certainly not voting for Romney. I don't want a president like the last 10 that we have had. When was the last time we actually had an anti-war candidate from the democrats? When was the last time we actually had a free market candidate from the republicans?

If the Republicans choose Gingrich, Santorum or Romney as their candidate, I'm not voting for them. If the democrats have Obama as their candidate I'm not voting for them. Inste

You may vote for ponies, but what you're getting is a kitten or a puppy.

Given the cart that needs pulling to get out of the quicksand, I'll vote for the pony.

The Republicans can't win the general election without the Ron Paul supporters and they know it. And polling indicates that at LEAST half of the Paulistas will NOT vote for any of the other members of the Republican field, considering them at least as much of a problem as Obama. (Only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney poll as potentially winning against O. A

"The audience at the inauguration were puzzled by the beginning of President Romney's long-anticipated speech, in which he simply intoned: 'Attention all planets of the solar federation: we have assumed control, we have assumed control, we have assumed control..'"

What's really uncanny is the two or three editorials per day about Romney's massive electability problems. And I only read one mainstream outlet; this story suggests other papers are doing the same thing. All this babbling about his problems and how he can't possibly win, and meanwhile he's, you know....winning. At least the nomination, and he probably has as good a chance as any against Obama in the general election.

I don't like Romney at all, but I'm still profoundly unsettled by this desperate meta-campaign to convince people he can't win. Are news outlets delusional? Are they trying to shape public policy by falsely prophesying some inevitable result? It just plain creeps me out.

I don't like Romney at all, but I'm still profoundly unsettled by this desperate meta-campaign to convince people he can't win. Are news outlets delusional? Are they trying to shape public policy by falsely prophesying some inevitable result? It just plain creeps me out.

I think its a matter of selling eyeballs to advertisers. No one is going to read or comment on a story that is true, which would appear under a headline: "Romney's Campaign Prepared to Spend Its Way to Victory".

Money is the big determiner of primary outcomes, and Romney has the most by a long shot. Ergo, he's going to win. But pundits don't get paid to point out obvious facts. They get paid to stir up controversy, especially where no reasonable level of uncertainty exists. Ergo, all this bullshit in a

Verb: Behave in an ingratiating way in order to gain favor: "I smarmed my way into the air force".Noun: Ingratiating behavior: "it takes smarm and confidence".

Mitt Romney looks like someone who forced himself to smile so long that it is stuck on his face like a sticker. The guy probably sleeps with that grin. It looks weird and painful. It screams "used car salesman" which is the essence of smarmy. I suspect that everyone realizes this, but many don't seem to understand that this is a common shared concept and there is a word for it.

The best thing the guy could do is to be more like his father, George Romney. He was governor of Michigan when I was a child. He was a self-made auto executive before that. The family didn't come from money. In fact, they fled from a Mormon colony during the Mexican Revolution and "struggled during the Great Depression". (Yes, I cribbed that from Wikipedia...)

Before running for governor, George Romney was CEO of American Motors, the underdog of auto manufacturers. When George Romney ran for the office of governor, he released *7* years of tax returns. He became a popular Republican governor of a almost-exclusively Democratic state. I don't recall any "mormon" issue, but I was a little kid, and I think awareness of Mormonism was pretty low. Nobody knew what that was, or else didn't care.

I don't know why Mitt refuses to take after his father, who seemed - to me, at least - an honest and direct man.

I suppose the problem is - he CAN'T be like his father. George grew up in a Mormon colony in Mexico and in Salt Lake City during the depression. Mitt grew up in Bloomfield Hills, which is one of Earth's Reality-Free Zones.